US Goverment Executes 16 Year Old From Colorado

I have a major problem with how Alwaki was targeted and killed. Not that he died so much, because I would have simply been pushing for the Death Penalty here. That isn't the point though. I DO NOT think America has the right to go around targeting American citizens for termination without making every DOCUMENTED, reasonable attempt to capture said American citizen alive for return to our nation to face charges of Treason.

The Constitution isn't about the end result.....it's about the framework of how one gets there. That is what matters and why I can be 100% for the guy getting killed..but NOT for targeted Assassination to accomplish it.


As far as the kid in the thread? Hey... You pays yer money, you takes yer chances. It's just that simple. If we don't 'know' if he was the target, then he wasn't. This administration brags over getting the kitchen order right at the White House, it seems. They wouldn't fail to note another "brilliant victory" by Obama if we'd bagged the intended target for the strike.

So... If I were to become a little (or just flat out) insane, and go overseas to join Al Qaeda.....and then purely by happenstance of being within a group in active, armed combat I get a Hell-fire missile up my tailpipe. Should anyone here cry for ME? Should a single person outside my own Mother perhaps (and I wouldn't count on it) feel the least bit bad? Or would everyone kinda nod their heads and mutter about what an idiot I'd have been, getting what I deserved? A Super-Darwin Award.

I wouldn't have agreed with targeting him, as noted...but good riddens to the little rodent all the same. If he hadn't chose to hang out with the enemy of America, he wouldn't have died by an American missile off an American bomber-drone. Makes perfect sense to me.

Originally posted by bekod
reply to post by camaro68ss

 

if you read the laws, the law of war, if you are a combatant and are a US citizen you give up your rights and Citizenship therefore he was not a citizen but "fair game" as the Gov would see it.

What war? Listen to what you're saying. There is no war.

Ok so he was on the interwebs claiming Jihad?

And he's executed.

Oh, It's in the Constitution? I guess that means it's alright. ahaha I almost thought I was crazy.

Use your common sense. If I said I was apart of Jihad or whatever that doesn't make it true. ESPECIALLY with a 16 year old kid.

So the Government picks and chooses what they want to use out of the Constitution to get somebody killed or arrested.

This whole country is headed for hell.

reply to post by camaro68ss

The U.S. government is now targeting and executing American citizens, without due process, who they have labeled as terrorists with little to no evidence.

Wrong. The US government is now targeting terrorists who happened to be born in America.

Big difference.

American's don't blow up other Americans. No mercy.

Originally posted by Blaine91555
reply to post by camaro68ss

 

How can you be an American citizen if you commit treason by joining the enemy and fighting against America?

Are you a Terrorist also?

I agree, bro. I think anyone who has differing viewpoints from the government should be an enemy combatant. After all, if you're not with the government, you're against them right? There's alot of terrorists on ATS, Blaine.


Let's get em'! *Throws the FEMA jail cell keys to Blaine*

Originally posted by camaro68ss
Whats scary is the goverment is killing americans in other counties without trial.

You mean like terrorists have been doing to us since the 1970s? Maybe it's high time we played them at their own game...seems to make things a lot fairer in my book. Along those lines...I've already decided that if I get diagnosed with a terminal illness I will move forward with my plans to introduce to the US government the idea of me becoming a suicide bomber. It will save my family a fortune on medical expenses and it's a small payback for all those that had to jump from the Twin Towers.

Nobody believes me but

Obama wants to destroy the country!!

Been telling y'all that since he came on the scene..

reply to post by DerbyCityLights

Awlaki was a treasonous traitor to America. A crime punishable by death during war time according to the law. If you don't want to be targeted, don't be a traitor and trick the youth into blowing themselves up for your cause. Not only was he treasonous, but he was a coward (as all of those pieces of feces are) who trick their youth into becoming suicide bombers.

Somebody who lies to get elected, ignores the Constitution that they swear an oath to protect and defend, and instead passess and endorses actions/legislation that violates it is a traitor. Terrorists are bad, anybody who murders anybody is bad. But what is this, the Wild West, or some sort of mob movie? The American government openly goes around killing people like they're some sort of hit-man?

How is that seen as OK? Do we not have a standard procedure for this, which revolves around, I don't know, obeying the Constitution? What ever happened to courts of law, trials by jury, speedy and public trials? The Fifth Amendment says that "no person shall be deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process of law". No matter how terrible they may be, terrorists are people, just like rapists are people, child abusers are people, and serial killers are people.

The president declaring somebody an enemy of the state, and assassinating him because he has determined that he's a bad guy is DANGEROUS! Where is the line drawn? Who is making these decisions? Do you realize that members of our government are corrupt, and this won't be used only to protect us from brown boogeymen?

The government can kill people at random now! All they have to do is tell us they're bad guys! This isn't patriotic, this is the road to tyranny! "If tyranny and oppression come to this land, it will be under the guise of fighting a foreign enemy" - James Madison.

reply to post by benrl
that is like asking about dripping faucet, when will it drip next, when it wants too, who are we fighting?? I do not think the US gov knows anymore but to help with this question here is but one link terrorism.about.com... and just to reaffirm my view that this is WW3

President Bush first mentioned the "War on Terror" in an address to Congress on September 20, 2001. In that address, he promised to commit law enforcement, intelligence, and financial influence, as well as "every necessary weapon of war to the disruption and the defeat of the global terror network."

in case you just glanced at it

"every necessary weapon of war to the disruption and the defeat of the global terror network."

global =world=world terror network= world war on terror= world war 3 wonder if that meant the use of nukes?"every necessary weapon of war to the disruption and the defeat of the global terror network." think about it

Okay, he got immunity from drone strikes or a strike from the United States? Only way that he can get killed is if we capture him. Risk sending in special ops to that location so we can send him to the U.S, and convict him.

Jesus, just to please people Obama should have sent a proxy nation to take him out so everyone could get off Obamas dick.

Give me a break.

reply to post by TupacShakur
I have to ask how did you get your hands on Geedublyas guide to self rule?? The government can kill people at random now! All they have to do is tell us they're bad guys! This isn't patriotic, this is the road to tyranny! how to rule 101

"If tyranny and oppression come to this land, it will be under the guise of fighting a foreign enemy"- James Madison.

or Gee W's guide book to self rule
page 1 how to control the masses , make them think they are the enemy that they are the first line of defense see something say something,
step 2 page 1 under the guise of fighting a foreign enemy, make laws that impede the freedom of ones moment, tell them it is for there own safety.
Give fancy names to agency's TSA DHS, have but one over seer NSA. step 3 page 1 do not let the populace know if there is or is not a true threat, let it slip out now and then you have captured one in the act or planed act. The rest we all now
how to win an election ,
how to deal with out dated laws ,
what to do when detainment camps have out lived there usefulness,
how to avoid new laws that will make the Gov job harder but easier to list who is or is not a threat er hostile... ect ect ect

TERRORIST!!



"You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means."

reply to post by Blaine91555

I'm sorry but from the moment a person joins with the enemy, they are no longer citizens, they are in fact enemy combatants on top of committing Treason.

I am against the current government and the people who operate it. They are not working for the people as they are elected, appointed or hired to do. The acts congress commits is just as bad, if not worse than treason. Yet are we going to kill them all in cold blood?

I don't actually think people arguing this are in fact Terrorists themselves, but you simply cannot make excuses for or defend the actions of Terrorists.

Since there is no clear information on this 16 y/o boy, then to assume he was a terrorist or even took part in terrorist acts or training, is misleading and just ignorant. You didn't know this boy, and so far no one has provided any information on him (assuming any even exists).

I do worry how the laws will be applied, but in this case the person is a Terrorist. You cannot gather evidence for a trial when in combat against Terrorist groups, nor should anyone be expected to. The simple solution is for the Terrorism to stop. Making it easier for them to get off and rejoin their fellow Terrorists in trying to eliminate the West from the face of the earth is well, just dumb and very naive.

Today the definition of a terrorist can be protesters. For example...the authorities in London recently labeled #occupylondon a domestic terrorist group. yet they aren't breaking any laws...unless protesting is suddenly a terrorist act now. Denouncing your government, isn't terrorism. It's called revolting.

This kid was dead before he was born. His fate was sealed by the person who would raise him. He is not a child by any stretch and could not be considered as such in this case. The true blame lies with those who brainwashed him and raised him. Placing him in a prison here would only allow him to recruit others and result in lots of innocent victims. Doing so would make anyone involved in part guilty for the inevitable future deaths at their hands.

Did you even think about what you were writing? Or are you just going to use stereotype remarks to make your point. A kid is a kid. 16 or 6. How he is raised doesn't change that fact. Again, you assume this child was a terrorist and was performing terrorist acts. Prove this. Instead of insulting someone who can't defend himself. We have several terrorists in prisons in the US and Cuba...do you see them "recruiting" anyone? Imprisoning them might give more steam for terrorists to join a "jihad" but it in no way means they are recruiting anyone.

At some point you must add common sense to the law if you do not want to make it worse rather than better. Once a person joins with the Terrorists, they give up any Rights. Why do think Treason is supposed to result in being shot on sight? It's because that person if left alive will kill anyone on the other side. It's naive to think otherwise I'm sure.

Everyone has rights. even criminals, and in this case terrorists. We give people in prison meals, beds, water, clothing etc. And I think you need to reread that constitutional article again : "No Person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the Testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court." I don't know where you get this killing from, but I think you are watching too many movies. This is reality, not a game show or a blockbuster film.

The moral of the story, don't vacation in Yemen folks.

People keep mentioning rights and freedoms that are lost during war as an "enemy combatant" etc.

These people are seemingly oblivious to the fact that you are not "at war".
War was never declared.
Last time I checked "declaring war" and "making war" are two very different things in law and one of these things has very well defined rules.
This is why there is no declaration, because certain people would rather not be called to account for the things they are doing this time around.

I hate when a government can declare it's own citizens as enemies of war. Especially without due process of common law, and then starts to assassinate it's own citizens.

It's as if this government has gotten out of control and has declared war on it's own citizens.

If another government started assassinating US citizens, we would consider it an act of war, and with a real commander-in-chief we'd respond with strength.

During the cold war, it would be the duty of the country to retaliate against another country. Retaliation is crucial as it prevents escalation.

Its a shame that we the people have no control over these drones, because there are a lot of traitors running around called 'congressmen' that are deserving enough to feel the sting of a drone's missile.

reply to post by DerbyCityLights


Im very sure he was a traitor.
However, I didn't sit on his jury. No one did. To be sentenced to death with no trial? that's insane.

Originally posted by Jim Scott
Veteran here.

Collateral damage.

Terrorists are cowards, and hide among family members to avoid fighting for their beliefs.

Drones are our answer to not sending out their troops for a fair fight.

Any questions?

A fair fight?! Are you kidding....

As far as US soldiers participating in a 'fair fight' on open ground. Clear of designated civilians. All I've ever witnessed is US air support soon after entering the AO. Even for minimal forces. The most easily accessible footage I could suggest for someone wishing to see that. Is that Documentary "Restrepo". If your operating within an urban environment. I've found US soldiers aren't as trigger happy. An aren't spared the air assets so willingly.

Drones are the answer for hitting targets you do not want to be seen physically on the ground engaging. Especially when intruding in foreign land/air space, where the residing nation is not quite capable of downing said air assets. The closest fairness that was ever demonstrated in modern combat was back in the world wars.

An if we indulged your ideal of a "fair fight" you's would be overwhelmed by a smaller force. Now we can't have that happening. Your average US soldier has not had the conditioning that the said militants in Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan and other nations have had. It would be one of the most exploitable weaknesses of the US war machine, in the event of a so called fair fight.

Originally posted by rogerstigers
"You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means."

Great movie, and brilliant comparison.

There are alot of hidden political references in the film The Princess Bride. ~SheopleNation